U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts on Friday called for a response from a Virginia school

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The answer is very simple.

FCPS should just eliminate all the newly introduced proxy-to-race factors such as geographic quota and experienced factors. One would argue it's not that difficult to administer a test. But given the laziness of FCPS admins, I don't think they would administer one.

No the tests are proxies too is the problem.

Hmmm that's the definition of racism. Are you implying URMs can't do well in tests?

Given that they have less access to boutique expensive test prep opportunities because on balance they tend to have fewer resources, yes. Underrepresented groups (like, for example, poor Asians) can’t afford to send their kids to these companies to get a leg up on exams.

However, "poor Asians" are doing extremely well on the entrance exam for the Stuyvesant. They don;t have money for classes or tutors so they study with a book. Almost all the Asian admittees are "poor". Another inconvenient truth.

Stuyvesant is not TJ. A much higher percentage of the total applicants going for Stuy are low-income. Many of the wealthier kids applying for the NY elite public schools list others as their preference.

Bottom line is almost no poor Asians got in under the previous process and under the new process they were the biggest beneficiaries. More poor Asians admitted than total Black and total Hispanic students.

Hahahahaha That's your response - Stuyvesant is not TJ? You should just give it up if that's all you have. Inconvenient Truth!

Yes. They are different schools that exist in completely different economic spaces.

Yes they are different schools. They even have different school names. They are even in different states.

It's fascinating that no poor Asians got in under the previous system but under the new system they were the biggest beneficiaries!

If this is true, then it's hard to claim that this policy is anti-asian especially since they are still the largest group in these programs by a huge margin.

This claim is made on the basis of FARMS statistics. This metric was self reported last year. The question was poorly worded and everyone could respond with a “yes”. Many followed the “spirit” of the question and not the “letter” of the question and responded with a no. Many others said yes. Unlike other years, FARMS last year was not a representative metric of poverty. Braband claimed the new process gave greater access to lower income kids based on this flawed data. This was either stupidity on the part of the School Board or a cynical plan of manipulation (more likely the latter). You can search for this issue on this forum.

So the claim about greater access to lower income kids is in the same category as “largest crowds came to my inauguration” - utter BS

Are you calling Asians liars?

I am pointing to a flaw in the process that has been highlighted by many. I will let your prejudices lead you to your conclusions.

The claim was that the new system let more poor Asian kids into TJ. The response was that people lied on the application. The obvious implication is that whoever said that thinks the Asians who checked the FARMs box are lying

Gotcha works in settling playground arguments as does calling people names. Unfortunately it does not work in a court of law. It is immaterial if Asians or others responded truthfully or not. The question should not have allowed ambiguity in response. School Board officials had a duty to design a question that was unambiguous. They failed (either out of incompetence or by design). So yes whatever - you can call people names and please your soul. That is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The answer is very simple.

FCPS should just eliminate all the newly introduced proxy-to-race factors such as geographic quota and experienced factors. One would argue it's not that difficult to administer a test. But given the laziness of FCPS admins, I don't think they would administer one.

No the tests are proxies too is the problem.

Hmmm that's the definition of racism. Are you implying URMs can't do well in tests?

Given that they have less access to boutique expensive test prep opportunities because on balance they tend to have fewer resources, yes. Underrepresented groups (like, for example, poor Asians) can’t afford to send their kids to these companies to get a leg up on exams.

However, "poor Asians" are doing extremely well on the entrance exam for the Stuyvesant. They don;t have money for classes or tutors so they study with a book. Almost all the Asian admittees are "poor". Another inconvenient truth.

Stuyvesant is not TJ. A much higher percentage of the total applicants going for Stuy are low-income. Many of the wealthier kids applying for the NY elite public schools list others as their preference.

Bottom line is almost no poor Asians got in under the previous process and under the new process they were the biggest beneficiaries. More poor Asians admitted than total Black and total Hispanic students.

Hahahahaha That's your response - Stuyvesant is not TJ? You should just give it up if that's all you have. Inconvenient Truth!

Yes. They are different schools that exist in completely different economic spaces.

Yes they are different schools. They even have different school names. They are even in different states.

It's fascinating that no poor Asians got in under the previous system but under the new system they were the biggest beneficiaries!

If this is true, then it's hard to claim that this policy is anti-asian especially since they are still the largest group in these programs by a huge margin.

This claim is made on the basis of FARMS statistics. This metric was self reported last year. The question was poorly worded and everyone could respond with a “yes”. Many followed the “spirit” of the question and not the “letter” of the question and responded with a no. Many others said yes. Unlike other years, FARMS last year was not a representative metric of poverty. Braband claimed the new process gave greater access to lower income kids based on this flawed data. This was either stupidity on the part of the School Board or a cynical plan of manipulation (more likely the latter). You can search for this issue on this forum.

So the claim about greater access to lower income kids is in the same category as “largest crowds came to my inauguration” - utter BS

Are you calling Asians liars?

I am pointing to a flaw in the process that has been highlighted by many. I will let your prejudices lead you to your conclusions.

The claim was that the new system let more poor Asian kids into TJ. The response was that people lied on the application. The obvious implication is that whoever said that thinks the Asians who checked the FARMs box are lying

Gotcha works in settling playground arguments as does calling people names. Unfortunately it does not work in a court of law. It is immaterial if Asians or others responded truthfully or not. The question should not have allowed ambiguity in response. School Board officials had a duty to design a question that was unambiguous. They failed (either out of incompetence or by design). So yes whatever - you can call people names and please your soul. That is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Genuine question - do you have confirmation from any source that the self-reported data from the question asked was directly used in reporting the Economically Disadvantaged data? It's worth noting that while the question asked referenced eligibility for free/reduced meals, the listing on the press release indicated "Economically Disadvantaged".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The answer is very simple.

FCPS should just eliminate all the newly introduced proxy-to-race factors such as geographic quota and experienced factors. One would argue it's not that difficult to administer a test. But given the laziness of FCPS admins, I don't think they would administer one.

No the tests are proxies too is the problem.

Hmmm that's the definition of racism. Are you implying URMs can't do well in tests?

Given that they have less access to boutique expensive test prep opportunities because on balance they tend to have fewer resources, yes. Underrepresented groups (like, for example, poor Asians) can’t afford to send their kids to these companies to get a leg up on exams.

However, "poor Asians" are doing extremely well on the entrance exam for the Stuyvesant. They don;t have money for classes or tutors so they study with a book. Almost all the Asian admittees are "poor". Another inconvenient truth.

Stuyvesant is not TJ. A much higher percentage of the total applicants going for Stuy are low-income. Many of the wealthier kids applying for the NY elite public schools list others as their preference.

Bottom line is almost no poor Asians got in under the previous process and under the new process they were the biggest beneficiaries. More poor Asians admitted than total Black and total Hispanic students.

Hahahahaha That's your response - Stuyvesant is not TJ? You should just give it up if that's all you have. Inconvenient Truth!

Yes. They are different schools that exist in completely different economic spaces.

Yes they are different schools. They even have different school names. They are even in different states.

It's fascinating that no poor Asians got in under the previous system but under the new system they were the biggest beneficiaries!

If this is true, then it's hard to claim that this policy is anti-asian especially since they are still the largest group in these programs by a huge margin.

This claim is made on the basis of FARMS statistics. This metric was self reported last year. The question was poorly worded and everyone could respond with a “yes”. Many followed the “spirit” of the question and not the “letter” of the question and responded with a no. Many others said yes. Unlike other years, FARMS last year was not a representative metric of poverty. Braband claimed the new process gave greater access to lower income kids based on this flawed data. This was either stupidity on the part of the School Board or a cynical plan of manipulation (more likely the latter). You can search for this issue on this forum.

So the claim about greater access to lower income kids is in the same category as “largest crowds came to my inauguration” - utter BS

Are you calling Asians liars?

I am pointing to a flaw in the process that has been highlighted by many. I will let your prejudices lead you to your conclusions.

The claim was that the new system let more poor Asian kids into TJ. The response was that people lied on the application. The obvious implication is that whoever said that thinks the Asians who checked the FARMs box are lying

Gotcha works in settling playground arguments as does calling people names. Unfortunately it does not work in a court of law. It is immaterial if Asians or others responded truthfully or not. The question should not have allowed ambiguity in response. School Board officials had a duty to design a question that was unambiguous. They failed (either out of incompetence or by design). So yes whatever - you can call people names and please your soul. That is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Genuine question - do you have confirmation from any source that the self-reported data from the question asked was directly used in reporting the Economically Disadvantaged data? It's worth noting that while the question asked referenced eligibility for free/reduced meals, the listing on the press release indicated "Economically Disadvantaged".

The only information collected by the School Board that could point to “economically disadvantaged” is the FARMS question. This is also the standard proxy used by FCPS for calculating “economically disadvantaged” for other purposes. It has been discussed on this Forum that they don’t have access to tax returns and such to make a direct determination.

The school board is yet to clarify how they came to the conclusion on more “economically disadvantaged” were admitted and especially after the inconsistency on the FARMS question was highlighted.

Do you have a view on why we should believe the Board?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The answer is very simple.

FCPS should just eliminate all the newly introduced proxy-to-race factors such as geographic quota and experienced factors. One would argue it's not that difficult to administer a test. But given the laziness of FCPS admins, I don't think they would administer one.

No the tests are proxies too is the problem.

Hmmm that's the definition of racism. Are you implying URMs can't do well in tests?

Given that they have less access to boutique expensive test prep opportunities because on balance they tend to have fewer resources, yes. Underrepresented groups (like, for example, poor Asians) can’t afford to send their kids to these companies to get a leg up on exams.

However, "poor Asians" are doing extremely well on the entrance exam for the Stuyvesant. They don;t have money for classes or tutors so they study with a book. Almost all the Asian admittees are "poor". Another inconvenient truth.

Stuyvesant is not TJ. A much higher percentage of the total applicants going for Stuy are low-income. Many of the wealthier kids applying for the NY elite public schools list others as their preference.

Bottom line is almost no poor Asians got in under the previous process and under the new process they were the biggest beneficiaries. More poor Asians admitted than total Black and total Hispanic students.

Hahahahaha That's your response - Stuyvesant is not TJ? You should just give it up if that's all you have. Inconvenient Truth!

Yes. They are different schools that exist in completely different economic spaces.

Yes they are different schools. They even have different school names. They are even in different states.

It's fascinating that no poor Asians got in under the previous system but under the new system they were the biggest beneficiaries!

If this is true, then it's hard to claim that this policy is anti-asian especially since they are still the largest group in these programs by a huge margin.

This claim is made on the basis of FARMS statistics. This metric was self reported last year. The question was poorly worded and everyone could respond with a “yes”. Many followed the “spirit” of the question and not the “letter” of the question and responded with a no. Many others said yes. Unlike other years, FARMS last year was not a representative metric of poverty. Braband claimed the new process gave greater access to lower income kids based on this flawed data. This was either stupidity on the part of the School Board or a cynical plan of manipulation (more likely the latter). You can search for this issue on this forum.

So the claim about greater access to lower income kids is in the same category as “largest crowds came to my inauguration” - utter BS

Are you calling Asians liars?

I am pointing to a flaw in the process that has been highlighted by many. I will let your prejudices lead you to your conclusions.

The claim was that the new system let more poor Asian kids into TJ. The response was that people lied on the application. The obvious implication is that whoever said that thinks the Asians who checked the FARMs box are lying

Gotcha works in settling playground arguments as does calling people names. Unfortunately it does not work in a court of law. It is immaterial if Asians or others responded truthfully or not. The question should not have allowed ambiguity in response. School Board officials had a duty to design a question that was unambiguous. They failed (either out of incompetence or by design). So yes whatever - you can call people names and please your soul. That is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Genuine question - do you have confirmation from any source that the self-reported data from the question asked was directly used in reporting the Economically Disadvantaged data? It's worth noting that while the question asked referenced eligibility for free/reduced meals, the listing on the press release indicated "Economically Disadvantaged".

The only information collected by the School Board that could point to “economically disadvantaged” is the FARMS question. This is also the standard proxy used by FCPS for calculating “economically disadvantaged” for other purposes. It has been discussed on this Forum that they don’t have access to tax returns and such to make a direct determination.

The school board is yet to clarify how they came to the conclusion on more “economically disadvantaged” were admitted and especially after the inconsistency on the FARMS question was highlighted.

Do you have a view on why we should believe the Board?

Well, for one thing, the Admissions Office liaises directly with the individual schools for each applicant, both for demographic information but also (more critically) to confirm that they're enrolled in the appropriate level of math. There's actually a member of the Student Services Department for each FCPS middle school who is directly responsible for managing all of these applications from the school side and they would have access to the same information that, in a normal year, determines if a student is FARMS-eligible.

The School Board has absolutely behaved inappropriately, but in this instance we're talking about reporting from the Admissions Office on data that they're getting from the schools directly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The appeals hasn’t even ruled yet. No way the Supreme Court takes this stupid case.

This!

Well I think the SC is taking the question of whether they can do the admissions policy for this year while they sort out the whole thing through the courts, right?

Wednesday is April 13. It's way too late already, despite what the dissent said. Maybe they are on to next year's incoming class?

They can do a lottery very quickly. If they really want to tweak coalition for TJ, they can automatically enter every rising freshman in the county and create a waitlist for those who decline.

Keep dreaming.

my dream would be for them to just close the school

That's obvious, hon.

Sorry.

It gets closer every day. A school that becomes a right wing darling reliant on a very left wing school board is not long for this world.

Makes me sad, but here we are.

DP, but I would rather have them close the school than see FCPS spend so much time, money, and attention litigation over the composition of a single high school.

It's obscene that FCPS has over 200 schools and one school commands so much focus because the School Board was so clumsy and inartful when it decided to change the admissions process. Enough already.

They could have chosen to done things differently. Instead of implementing racist policies, they could have responded with more outreach and educational resources at schools that serve URM student population. Instead by went full racist, completely unbashful about their intentions, unreceptive to feedback and criticism from parents. They chose to make this into a big issue because they wanted the glory of remaking what is the top high school in the entire United States. They wanted that badge of honor on their progressive resume, a crowning achievement of performative intersectional justice for diversity, equity, and inclusion. It's no surprise then that they dedicated their resources towards this cause. The level of effort they have expended to defend their racist practice shows you just how much they have invested in this endeavor.

No one asked the school board to be racist. They just couldn't help it. They decided to do this themselves, with no one else to blame.

I agree with you but it does reach a point where it's time to just put an end to the bickering. Let TJ return to use as a neighborhood school or have it serve as a full-time Academy program offering specialized, challenging courses available only at TJ to students who attend their base schools for their other classes, but both sides need to realize how they are degrading FCPS by allowing so much attention to be focused on a single school to the exclusion of other schools.

The Coalition for TJ and the TJAAG are both full of preening narcissists equally wedded to their own visions of what TJ should be (and completely disinterested in the other 97% of FCPS kids). And this ridiculous, utterly incompetent School Board that set the stage for this to happen needs to be sent packing next year - every last one of them.

I don't see why that's the preferable outcome versus having TJ continue to be a school where applicants are evaluated based on merit against standardized assessments. Sure there are preening narcissists, but just because a preening narcissist likes the taste of a banana, doesn't change the fact that bananas are delicious and healthy. There is a place in our society for merit-based identification and advancement of young scholars. There may be other goals that we as a society want to achieve and we can have those as additional programs. Let TJ remain doing what it has done so well as to earn the top rank among the nation's high schools.

Please outline the path for that to happen expeditiously and in a manner that, you know, actually allows the idiots on this School Board to pay some attention to the other 97% of kids in FCPS.

It's not my job to outline that path. I'm merely defending that TJ should stay on its prior non-racist path that caused it to become the #1 HS in the US. That the other problems are difficult is no excuse to implement racist policies for TJ. Any time the board spent fiddling with TJ could have been used for the other 97% of FCPS kids instead.

But your “mere defense” leaves the earlier point - which is that TJ admissions has become an unproductive waste of FCPS time, energy, and resources that harms other school communities - wholly unaddressed. It’s apparently time to wind it down or change TJ to a less controversial Academy program.

IMO, a less wasteful, but still selective method would be to take X% of the highest GPA from each school (because opportunities and options vary by school), and choose from among them by lottery. If they want to be a bit more selective, have like 3 letters of support submitted by 2 STEM/1 non-STEM teacher, and use that as guidance. Parents/kids can opt out if they don't want to be submitted for consideration.

I still don't see the justification as to why the original TJ policy needed to be changed. The underrepresentation of blacks/Latinos is caused by a resource gap and not a learning ability gap, so the solution is to increase resources rather than use some method to lower the entrance standard. We combat covid by delivering shots in arms, not by cherry picking who we test to get the desired infection rate.

That's been tried for decades with no results, but people who support that status quo love it because it pushes any changes down the road a few more years.

Failure at something is no excuse to engage in racist behaviors.

Of course, we just need a new plan that will take years to judge, and then a new plan after that, and maybe a few more. In the meantime, TJ can remain unsullied by poor kids

Now you are just giving up all pretense of being rational and logical, and appealing to emotion instead. Go ahead and wallow in your sorrow. Sad face.

When people are screaming that a school going form 75% to 55% of a population that comprises 20% of students is racist, logic is out the window.

You don’t get it, do you? Ends don’t justify the means - not in modern societies.

The process to get from 75% to 55% has to be above reproach. The FCPS process is not. And needs to be done away even if it yields a class that exactly represents the demographics of the county. If you don’t understand that and are stuck on the outcome then you don’t understand the issue that is being litigated.

Every day that goes by without the current admissions process being affirmed is one step closer to the Class of 2026 being selected by lottery. It would be wise for FCPS to make it known that this is their intent if the Supreme Court vacates the Fourth Circuit stay.

Any further action by the current board *except* for restoring original TJ process will be tainted with racist intent and challenged in court.

It does seem a little ironic that thus coalition for TJ demanding that the majority of the TJ spots go to one group in the name of fairness.

That's not what they are arguing for at all. You are just making stuff up. The coalition is asking for a non-racist admissions policy and let the student demographics be what they are as a result of natural competition.

"Natural competition" that is significantly aided - unquestionably - by parents leveraging their resources as heavily as possible to put their thumbs on the scales.

Why is it a problem for parents to provide resources to their children? Isn't this the entire goal of being a parent, to provide resources to children? Why should children with resources be penalized?

They can provide all of the resources in the world to their children. They just shouldn't expect increased access to taxpayer-funded educational opportunities as a consequence.

I am not sure how you are defining "increased access" in your mind, but if the access is based on open competition of merit, then all is fair.

"Increased access" would involve supporting an admissions process that resulted in less than one percent of admitted students coming from economically disadvantaged backgrounds....

.... against the backdrop of a ubiquitous nine-figure TJ prep complex that costs thousands of dollars for entry and claims overwhelmingly effective results.

That's circular logic. You are criticizing an application process for providing "increased access" to Asians and using the result of the process as the proof of so-called increased access. You, too, would have only been accepted into TJ based on "experience factors".

Nope. My point is not about the previous process providing increased access to Asians. It's about the previous process providing increased access to families that had the resources and motivation to mold their children's entire childhood around the TJ admissions process.

There isn't anything circular about my logic. The application fee was a problem. The exam that worked well for a year until the prep companies caught up to it was a problem. And the results were in the numbers.

On what objective and legally defensible basis you make the argument “ It's about the previous process providing increased access to families that had the resources and motivation to mold their children's entire childhood around the TJ admissions process.”. You would never make tag sweeping statement on hearsay, would you? And we dongg TJ stereotype, do we?

Not pp, but the class data in prior definitely showed that family resources were a prerequisite for admission to TJ.

Did the docs conclude that parents “molded children’s entire childhood around the TJ process”

Ahh that's not germane to the question before the SC right now.

Then we are in agreement. There is a PP who believes this is the basis of defending the constitutionality of the new process that is front of the court. Hyperbole wins rap contests not constitutional cases.

Good grief, you're talking about me so I'm going to step in and clarify. There are two separate points that are at issue for me and I was discussing one and not the other.

1) Is the new admissions process constitutional? I argue that it is and I believe that Judge Heytens is correct that the only relevant question is regarding the current process and whether or not it is fair to applicants. Heytens argues that it doesn't really matter what the previous process was and correctly asserts that the Coalition's entire case rests on comparing the results of the previous process - which had much more obvious disparate racial impacts than the new process does - and the results of the new process. The Coalition wants to focus on the motivations for the change while the real question should be simply about whether or not the new process is constitutional on its own. And it is, by any reasonable standard.

2) What type of admissions process would best serve TJ's academic environment moving forward? I don't think that the new admissions process as it is currently constituted is a finished product and I do see some significant flaws, though I see it as a tremendous step forward over the previous process. I would:

- Introduce a re-engineered teacher recommendation form that allowed teachers to compare students to the others in their respective classes with respect to their contributions to the overall academic environment
- Reduce the percentage of allocated seats from each middle school from 1.5% to 1%
- Allow admissions committee to give some additional consideration to students in highly advanced math classes as part of evaluating the student's entire profile
- Ask students directly in their essays which single accomplishment they take the most pride in in BOTH STEM and non-STEM areas
- Eliminate the numerical rubric system in favor of a truly holistic evaluation

FCPS should adopt these ideas immediately as they represent a meaningful compromise that represents a far better portrait of each applicant. Bravo, PP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The answer is very simple.

FCPS should just eliminate all the newly introduced proxy-to-race factors such as geographic quota and experienced factors. One would argue it's not that difficult to administer a test. But given the laziness of FCPS admins, I don't think they would administer one.

No the tests are proxies too is the problem.

Hmmm that's the definition of racism. Are you implying URMs can't do well in tests?

Given that they have less access to boutique expensive test prep opportunities because on balance they tend to have fewer resources, yes. Underrepresented groups (like, for example, poor Asians) can’t afford to send their kids to these companies to get a leg up on exams.

However, "poor Asians" are doing extremely well on the entrance exam for the Stuyvesant. They don;t have money for classes or tutors so they study with a book. Almost all the Asian admittees are "poor". Another inconvenient truth.

Stuyvesant is not TJ. A much higher percentage of the total applicants going for Stuy are low-income. Many of the wealthier kids applying for the NY elite public schools list others as their preference.

Bottom line is almost no poor Asians got in under the previous process and under the new process they were the biggest beneficiaries. More poor Asians admitted than total Black and total Hispanic students.

Hahahahaha That's your response - Stuyvesant is not TJ? You should just give it up if that's all you have. Inconvenient Truth!

Yes. They are different schools that exist in completely different economic spaces.

Yes they are different schools. They even have different school names. They are even in different states.

It's fascinating that no poor Asians got in under the previous system but under the new system they were the biggest beneficiaries!

If this is true, then it's hard to claim that this policy is anti-asian especially since they are still the largest group in these programs by a huge margin.

This claim is made on the basis of FARMS statistics. This metric was self reported last year. The question was poorly worded and everyone could respond with a “yes”. Many followed the “spirit” of the question and not the “letter” of the question and responded with a no. Many others said yes. Unlike other years, FARMS last year was not a representative metric of poverty. Braband claimed the new process gave greater access to lower income kids based on this flawed data. This was either stupidity on the part of the School Board or a cynical plan of manipulation (more likely the latter). You can search for this issue on this forum.

So the claim about greater access to lower income kids is in the same category as “largest crowds came to my inauguration” - utter BS

Are you calling Asians liars?

I am pointing to a flaw in the process that has been highlighted by many. I will let your prejudices lead you to your conclusions.

The claim was that the new system let more poor Asian kids into TJ. The response was that people lied on the application. The obvious implication is that whoever said that thinks the Asians who checked the FARMs box are lying

Gotcha works in settling playground arguments as does calling people names. Unfortunately it does not work in a court of law. It is immaterial if Asians or others responded truthfully or not. The question should not have allowed ambiguity in response. School Board officials had a duty to design a question that was unambiguous. They failed (either out of incompetence or by design). So yes whatever - you can call people names and please your soul. That is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Genuine question - do you have confirmation from any source that the self-reported data from the question asked was directly used in reporting the Economically Disadvantaged data? It's worth noting that while the question asked referenced eligibility for free/reduced meals, the listing on the press release indicated "Economically Disadvantaged".

The only information collected by the School Board that could point to “economically disadvantaged” is the FARMS question. This is also the standard proxy used by FCPS for calculating “economically disadvantaged” for other purposes. It has been discussed on this Forum that they don’t have access to tax returns and such to make a direct determination.

The school board is yet to clarify how they came to the conclusion on more “economically disadvantaged” were admitted and especially after the inconsistency on the FARMS question was highlighted.

Do you have a view on why we should believe the Board?

Well, for one thing, the Admissions Office liaises directly with the individual schools for each applicant, both for demographic information but also (more critically) to confirm that they're enrolled in the appropriate level of math. There's actually a member of the Student Services Department for each FCPS middle school who is directly responsible for managing all of these applications from the school side and they would have access to the same information that, in a normal year, determines if a student is FARMS-eligible.

The School Board has absolutely behaved inappropriately, but in this instance we're talking about reporting from the Admissions Office on data that they're getting from the schools directly.

We are not talking about how the data is collected. If the data is flawed and is collected by the principal themselves, it is still flawed. Unless you saying the school relied on information outside what was in the application. Which opens up a whole new line of concern.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The answer is very simple.

FCPS should just eliminate all the newly introduced proxy-to-race factors such as geographic quota and experienced factors. One would argue it's not that difficult to administer a test. But given the laziness of FCPS admins, I don't think they would administer one.

No the tests are proxies too is the problem.

Hmmm that's the definition of racism. Are you implying URMs can't do well in tests?

Given that they have less access to boutique expensive test prep opportunities because on balance they tend to have fewer resources, yes. Underrepresented groups (like, for example, poor Asians) can’t afford to send their kids to these companies to get a leg up on exams.

However, "poor Asians" are doing extremely well on the entrance exam for the Stuyvesant. They don;t have money for classes or tutors so they study with a book. Almost all the Asian admittees are "poor". Another inconvenient truth.

Stuyvesant is not TJ. A much higher percentage of the total applicants going for Stuy are low-income. Many of the wealthier kids applying for the NY elite public schools list others as their preference.

Bottom line is almost no poor Asians got in under the previous process and under the new process they were the biggest beneficiaries. More poor Asians admitted than total Black and total Hispanic students.

Hahahahaha That's your response - Stuyvesant is not TJ? You should just give it up if that's all you have. Inconvenient Truth!

Yes. They are different schools that exist in completely different economic spaces.

Yes they are different schools. They even have different school names. They are even in different states.

It's fascinating that no poor Asians got in under the previous system but under the new system they were the biggest beneficiaries!

If this is true, then it's hard to claim that this policy is anti-asian especially since they are still the largest group in these programs by a huge margin.

This claim is made on the basis of FARMS statistics. This metric was self reported last year. The question was poorly worded and everyone could respond with a “yes”. Many followed the “spirit” of the question and not the “letter” of the question and responded with a no. Many others said yes. Unlike other years, FARMS last year was not a representative metric of poverty. Braband claimed the new process gave greater access to lower income kids based on this flawed data. This was either stupidity on the part of the School Board or a cynical plan of manipulation (more likely the latter). You can search for this issue on this forum.

So the claim about greater access to lower income kids is in the same category as “largest crowds came to my inauguration” - utter BS

Are you calling Asians liars?

I am pointing to a flaw in the process that has been highlighted by many. I will let your prejudices lead you to your conclusions.

The claim was that the new system let more poor Asian kids into TJ. The response was that people lied on the application. The obvious implication is that whoever said that thinks the Asians who checked the FARMs box are lying

Gotcha works in settling playground arguments as does calling people names. Unfortunately it does not work in a court of law. It is immaterial if Asians or others responded truthfully or not. The question should not have allowed ambiguity in response. School Board officials had a duty to design a question that was unambiguous. They failed (either out of incompetence or by design). So yes whatever - you can call people names and please your soul. That is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Genuine question - do you have confirmation from any source that the self-reported data from the question asked was directly used in reporting the Economically Disadvantaged data? It's worth noting that while the question asked referenced eligibility for free/reduced meals, the listing on the press release indicated "Economically Disadvantaged".

The only information collected by the School Board that could point to “economically disadvantaged” is the FARMS question. This is also the standard proxy used by FCPS for calculating “economically disadvantaged” for other purposes. It has been discussed on this Forum that they don’t have access to tax returns and such to make a direct determination.

The school board is yet to clarify how they came to the conclusion on more “economically disadvantaged” were admitted and especially after the inconsistency on the FARMS question was highlighted.

Do you have a view on why we should believe the Board?

Well, for one thing, the Admissions Office liaises directly with the individual schools for each applicant, both for demographic information but also (more critically) to confirm that they're enrolled in the appropriate level of math. There's actually a member of the Student Services Department for each FCPS middle school who is directly responsible for managing all of these applications from the school side and they would have access to the same information that, in a normal year, determines if a student is FARMS-eligible.

The School Board has absolutely behaved inappropriately, but in this instance we're talking about reporting from the Admissions Office on data that they're getting from the schools directly.

We are not talking about how the data is collected. If the data is flawed and is collected by the principal themselves, it is still flawed. Unless you saying the school relied on information outside what was in the application. Which opens up a whole new line of concern.

Every student in the county has a file with information based what was supplied when the kid was initially enrolled. FARMs eligibility is part of that file

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The answer is very simple.

FCPS should just eliminate all the newly introduced proxy-to-race factors such as geographic quota and experienced factors. One would argue it's not that difficult to administer a test. But given the laziness of FCPS admins, I don't think they would administer one.

No the tests are proxies too is the problem.

Hmmm that's the definition of racism. Are you implying URMs can't do well in tests?

Given that they have less access to boutique expensive test prep opportunities because on balance they tend to have fewer resources, yes. Underrepresented groups (like, for example, poor Asians) can’t afford to send their kids to these companies to get a leg up on exams.

However, "poor Asians" are doing extremely well on the entrance exam for the Stuyvesant. They don;t have money for classes or tutors so they study with a book. Almost all the Asian admittees are "poor". Another inconvenient truth.

Stuyvesant is not TJ. A much higher percentage of the total applicants going for Stuy are low-income. Many of the wealthier kids applying for the NY elite public schools list others as their preference.

Bottom line is almost no poor Asians got in under the previous process and under the new process they were the biggest beneficiaries. More poor Asians admitted than total Black and total Hispanic students.

Hahahahaha That's your response - Stuyvesant is not TJ? You should just give it up if that's all you have. Inconvenient Truth!

Yes. They are different schools that exist in completely different economic spaces.

Yes they are different schools. They even have different school names. They are even in different states.

It's fascinating that no poor Asians got in under the previous system but under the new system they were the biggest beneficiaries!

If this is true, then it's hard to claim that this policy is anti-asian especially since they are still the largest group in these programs by a huge margin.

This claim is made on the basis of FARMS statistics. This metric was self reported last year. The question was poorly worded and everyone could respond with a “yes”. Many followed the “spirit” of the question and not the “letter” of the question and responded with a no. Many others said yes. Unlike other years, FARMS last year was not a representative metric of poverty. Braband claimed the new process gave greater access to lower income kids based on this flawed data. This was either stupidity on the part of the School Board or a cynical plan of manipulation (more likely the latter). You can search for this issue on this forum.

So the claim about greater access to lower income kids is in the same category as “largest crowds came to my inauguration” - utter BS

Are you calling Asians liars?

I am pointing to a flaw in the process that has been highlighted by many. I will let your prejudices lead you to your conclusions.

The claim was that the new system let more poor Asian kids into TJ. The response was that people lied on the application. The obvious implication is that whoever said that thinks the Asians who checked the FARMs box are lying

Gotcha works in settling playground arguments as does calling people names. Unfortunately it does not work in a court of law. It is immaterial if Asians or others responded truthfully or not. The question should not have allowed ambiguity in response. School Board officials had a duty to design a question that was unambiguous. They failed (either out of incompetence or by design). So yes whatever - you can call people names and please your soul. That is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Genuine question - do you have confirmation from any source that the self-reported data from the question asked was directly used in reporting the Economically Disadvantaged data? It's worth noting that while the question asked referenced eligibility for free/reduced meals, the listing on the press release indicated "Economically Disadvantaged".

The only information collected by the School Board that could point to “economically disadvantaged” is the FARMS question. This is also the standard proxy used by FCPS for calculating “economically disadvantaged” for other purposes. It has been discussed on this Forum that they don’t have access to tax returns and such to make a direct determination.

The school board is yet to clarify how they came to the conclusion on more “economically disadvantaged” were admitted and especially after the inconsistency on the FARMS question was highlighted.

Do you have a view on why we should believe the Board?

Well, for one thing, the Admissions Office liaises directly with the individual schools for each applicant, both for demographic information but also (more critically) to confirm that they're enrolled in the appropriate level of math. There's actually a member of the Student Services Department for each FCPS middle school who is directly responsible for managing all of these applications from the school side and they would have access to the same information that, in a normal year, determines if a student is FARMS-eligible.

The School Board has absolutely behaved inappropriately, but in this instance we're talking about reporting from the Admissions Office on data that they're getting from the schools directly.

We are not talking about how the data is collected. If the data is flawed and is collected by the principal themselves, it is still flawed. Unless you saying the school relied on information outside what was in the application. Which opens up a whole new line of concern.

Every student in the county has a file with information based what was supplied when the kid was initially enrolled. FARMs eligibility is part of that file

One, unlike race, economic status evolves and will not be the same from when the child enrolled. Certainly COVID impacted economic status of many families. The Board cannot defend using FARMS data that is not current.

Two, if I stated that my child was FARMS eligible in the application and some school officer overruled me based on his assessment of my child’s record then they need to ratify me and I should have an opportunity to appeal. None of this happened.

What happened was Braband and company chose to claim glory based on a flawed premise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The answer is very simple.

FCPS should just eliminate all the newly introduced proxy-to-race factors such as geographic quota and experienced factors. One would argue it's not that difficult to administer a test. But given the laziness of FCPS admins, I don't think they would administer one.

No the tests are proxies too is the problem.

Hmmm that's the definition of racism. Are you implying URMs can't do well in tests?

Given that they have less access to boutique expensive test prep opportunities because on balance they tend to have fewer resources, yes. Underrepresented groups (like, for example, poor Asians) can’t afford to send their kids to these companies to get a leg up on exams.

However, "poor Asians" are doing extremely well on the entrance exam for the Stuyvesant. They don;t have money for classes or tutors so they study with a book. Almost all the Asian admittees are "poor". Another inconvenient truth.

Stuyvesant is not TJ. A much higher percentage of the total applicants going for Stuy are low-income. Many of the wealthier kids applying for the NY elite public schools list others as their preference.

Bottom line is almost no poor Asians got in under the previous process and under the new process they were the biggest beneficiaries. More poor Asians admitted than total Black and total Hispanic students.

Hahahahaha That's your response - Stuyvesant is not TJ? You should just give it up if that's all you have. Inconvenient Truth!

Yes. They are different schools that exist in completely different economic spaces.

Yes they are different schools. They even have different school names. They are even in different states.

It's fascinating that no poor Asians got in under the previous system but under the new system they were the biggest beneficiaries!

If this is true, then it's hard to claim that this policy is anti-asian especially since they are still the largest group in these programs by a huge margin.

This claim is made on the basis of FARMS statistics. This metric was self reported last year. The question was poorly worded and everyone could respond with a “yes”. Many followed the “spirit” of the question and not the “letter” of the question and responded with a no. Many others said yes. Unlike other years, FARMS last year was not a representative metric of poverty. Braband claimed the new process gave greater access to lower income kids based on this flawed data. This was either stupidity on the part of the School Board or a cynical plan of manipulation (more likely the latter). You can search for this issue on this forum.

So the claim about greater access to lower income kids is in the same category as “largest crowds came to my inauguration” - utter BS

Are you calling Asians liars?

I am pointing to a flaw in the process that has been highlighted by many. I will let your prejudices lead you to your conclusions.

The claim was that the new system let more poor Asian kids into TJ. The response was that people lied on the application. The obvious implication is that whoever said that thinks the Asians who checked the FARMs box are lying

Gotcha works in settling playground arguments as does calling people names. Unfortunately it does not work in a court of law. It is immaterial if Asians or others responded truthfully or not. The question should not have allowed ambiguity in response. School Board officials had a duty to design a question that was unambiguous. They failed (either out of incompetence or by design). So yes whatever - you can call people names and please your soul. That is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Genuine question - do you have confirmation from any source that the self-reported data from the question asked was directly used in reporting the Economically Disadvantaged data? It's worth noting that while the question asked referenced eligibility for free/reduced meals, the listing on the press release indicated "Economically Disadvantaged".

The only information collected by the School Board that could point to “economically disadvantaged” is the FARMS question. This is also the standard proxy used by FCPS for calculating “economically disadvantaged” for other purposes. It has been discussed on this Forum that they don’t have access to tax returns and such to make a direct determination.

The school board is yet to clarify how they came to the conclusion on more “economically disadvantaged” were admitted and especially after the inconsistency on the FARMS question was highlighted.

Do you have a view on why we should believe the Board?

Well, for one thing, the Admissions Office liaises directly with the individual schools for each applicant, both for demographic information but also (more critically) to confirm that they're enrolled in the appropriate level of math. There's actually a member of the Student Services Department for each FCPS middle school who is directly responsible for managing all of these applications from the school side and they would have access to the same information that, in a normal year, determines if a student is FARMS-eligible.

The School Board has absolutely behaved inappropriately, but in this instance we're talking about reporting from the Admissions Office on data that they're getting from the schools directly.

We are not talking about how the data is collected. If the data is flawed and is collected by the principal themselves, it is still flawed. Unless you saying the school relied on information outside what was in the application. Which opens up a whole new line of concern.

Every student in the county has a file with information based what was supplied when the kid was initially enrolled. FARMs eligibility is part of that file

One, unlike race, economic status evolves and will not be the same from when the child enrolled. Certainly COVID impacted economic status of many families. The Board cannot defend using FARMS data that is not current.

Two, if I stated that my child was FARMS eligible in the application and some school officer overruled me based on his assessment of my child’s record then they need to ratify me and I should have an opportunity to appeal. None of this happened.

What happened was Braband and company chose to claim glory based on a flawed premise.

Y'all are nuts. Checking the FARMS box is fine as a proxy for ED, has been fine, and was fine during the worst of the pandemic. Virtually everyone experienced some financial hardship in 2020, not losing the house hardship but some form on food insecurity and other financial insecurity. That doesn't make FCPS wrong. It means the pandemic was hard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The answer is very simple.

FCPS should just eliminate all the newly introduced proxy-to-race factors such as geographic quota and experienced factors. One would argue it's not that difficult to administer a test. But given the laziness of FCPS admins, I don't think they would administer one.

No the tests are proxies too is the problem.

Hmmm that's the definition of racism. Are you implying URMs can't do well in tests?

Given that they have less access to boutique expensive test prep opportunities because on balance they tend to have fewer resources, yes. Underrepresented groups (like, for example, poor Asians) can’t afford to send their kids to these companies to get a leg up on exams.

However, "poor Asians" are doing extremely well on the entrance exam for the Stuyvesant. They don;t have money for classes or tutors so they study with a book. Almost all the Asian admittees are "poor". Another inconvenient truth.

Stuyvesant is not TJ. A much higher percentage of the total applicants going for Stuy are low-income. Many of the wealthier kids applying for the NY elite public schools list others as their preference.

Bottom line is almost no poor Asians got in under the previous process and under the new process they were the biggest beneficiaries. More poor Asians admitted than total Black and total Hispanic students.

Hahahahaha That's your response - Stuyvesant is not TJ? You should just give it up if that's all you have. Inconvenient Truth!

Yes. They are different schools that exist in completely different economic spaces.

Yes they are different schools. They even have different school names. They are even in different states.

It's fascinating that no poor Asians got in under the previous system but under the new system they were the biggest beneficiaries!

If this is true, then it's hard to claim that this policy is anti-asian especially since they are still the largest group in these programs by a huge margin.

This claim is made on the basis of FARMS statistics. This metric was self reported last year. The question was poorly worded and everyone could respond with a “yes”. Many followed the “spirit” of the question and not the “letter” of the question and responded with a no. Many others said yes. Unlike other years, FARMS last year was not a representative metric of poverty. Braband claimed the new process gave greater access to lower income kids based on this flawed data. This was either stupidity on the part of the School Board or a cynical plan of manipulation (more likely the latter). You can search for this issue on this forum.

So the claim about greater access to lower income kids is in the same category as “largest crowds came to my inauguration” - utter BS

Are you calling Asians liars?

I am pointing to a flaw in the process that has been highlighted by many. I will let your prejudices lead you to your conclusions.

The claim was that the new system let more poor Asian kids into TJ. The response was that people lied on the application. The obvious implication is that whoever said that thinks the Asians who checked the FARMs box are lying

Gotcha works in settling playground arguments as does calling people names. Unfortunately it does not work in a court of law. It is immaterial if Asians or others responded truthfully or not. The question should not have allowed ambiguity in response. School Board officials had a duty to design a question that was unambiguous. They failed (either out of incompetence or by design). So yes whatever - you can call people names and please your soul. That is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Genuine question - do you have confirmation from any source that the self-reported data from the question asked was directly used in reporting the Economically Disadvantaged data? It's worth noting that while the question asked referenced eligibility for free/reduced meals, the listing on the press release indicated "Economically Disadvantaged".

The only information collected by the School Board that could point to “economically disadvantaged” is the FARMS question. This is also the standard proxy used by FCPS for calculating “economically disadvantaged” for other purposes. It has been discussed on this Forum that they don’t have access to tax returns and such to make a direct determination.

The school board is yet to clarify how they came to the conclusion on more “economically disadvantaged” were admitted and especially after the inconsistency on the FARMS question was highlighted.

Do you have a view on why we should believe the Board?

Well, for one thing, the Admissions Office liaises directly with the individual schools for each applicant, both for demographic information but also (more critically) to confirm that they're enrolled in the appropriate level of math. There's actually a member of the Student Services Department for each FCPS middle school who is directly responsible for managing all of these applications from the school side and they would have access to the same information that, in a normal year, determines if a student is FARMS-eligible.

The School Board has absolutely behaved inappropriately, but in this instance we're talking about reporting from the Admissions Office on data that they're getting from the schools directly.

We are not talking about how the data is collected. If the data is flawed and is collected by the principal themselves, it is still flawed. Unless you saying the school relied on information outside what was in the application. Which opens up a whole new line of concern.

Every student in the county has a file with information based what was supplied when the kid was initially enrolled. FARMs eligibility is part of that file

One, unlike race, economic status evolves and will not be the same from when the child enrolled. Certainly COVID impacted economic status of many families. The Board cannot defend using FARMS data that is not current.

Two, if I stated that my child was FARMS eligible in the application and some school officer overruled me based on his assessment of my child’s record then they need to ratify me and I should have an opportunity to appeal. None of this happened.

What happened was Braband and company chose to claim glory based on a flawed premise.

Y'all are nuts. Checking the FARMS box is fine as a proxy for ED, has been fine, and was fine during the worst of the pandemic. Virtually everyone experienced some financial hardship in 2020, not losing the house hardship but some form on food insecurity and other financial insecurity. That doesn't make FCPS wrong. It means the pandemic was hard.

We agree with you. Nothing wrong with anyone checking the FARMS box. What is disingenuous is the School Board claiming the process resulted in more of the “poorer” folks being admitted. We should drop that claim as thoroughly discredited.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The answer is very simple.

FCPS should just eliminate all the newly introduced proxy-to-race factors such as geographic quota and experienced factors. One would argue it's not that difficult to administer a test. But given the laziness of FCPS admins, I don't think they would administer one.

No the tests are proxies too is the problem.

Hmmm that's the definition of racism. Are you implying URMs can't do well in tests?

Given that they have less access to boutique expensive test prep opportunities because on balance they tend to have fewer resources, yes. Underrepresented groups (like, for example, poor Asians) can’t afford to send their kids to these companies to get a leg up on exams.

However, "poor Asians" are doing extremely well on the entrance exam for the Stuyvesant. They don;t have money for classes or tutors so they study with a book. Almost all the Asian admittees are "poor". Another inconvenient truth.

Stuyvesant is not TJ. A much higher percentage of the total applicants going for Stuy are low-income. Many of the wealthier kids applying for the NY elite public schools list others as their preference.

Bottom line is almost no poor Asians got in under the previous process and under the new process they were the biggest beneficiaries. More poor Asians admitted than total Black and total Hispanic students.

Hahahahaha That's your response - Stuyvesant is not TJ? You should just give it up if that's all you have. Inconvenient Truth!

Yes. They are different schools that exist in completely different economic spaces.

Yes they are different schools. They even have different school names. They are even in different states.

It's fascinating that no poor Asians got in under the previous system but under the new system they were the biggest beneficiaries!

If this is true, then it's hard to claim that this policy is anti-asian especially since they are still the largest group in these programs by a huge margin.

This claim is made on the basis of FARMS statistics. This metric was self reported last year. The question was poorly worded and everyone could respond with a “yes”. Many followed the “spirit” of the question and not the “letter” of the question and responded with a no. Many others said yes. Unlike other years, FARMS last year was not a representative metric of poverty. Braband claimed the new process gave greater access to lower income kids based on this flawed data. This was either stupidity on the part of the School Board or a cynical plan of manipulation (more likely the latter). You can search for this issue on this forum.

So the claim about greater access to lower income kids is in the same category as “largest crowds came to my inauguration” - utter BS

Are you calling Asians liars?

I am pointing to a flaw in the process that has been highlighted by many. I will let your prejudices lead you to your conclusions.

The claim was that the new system let more poor Asian kids into TJ. The response was that people lied on the application. The obvious implication is that whoever said that thinks the Asians who checked the FARMs box are lying

Gotcha works in settling playground arguments as does calling people names. Unfortunately it does not work in a court of law. It is immaterial if Asians or others responded truthfully or not. The question should not have allowed ambiguity in response. School Board officials had a duty to design a question that was unambiguous. They failed (either out of incompetence or by design). So yes whatever - you can call people names and please your soul. That is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Genuine question - do you have confirmation from any source that the self-reported data from the question asked was directly used in reporting the Economically Disadvantaged data? It's worth noting that while the question asked referenced eligibility for free/reduced meals, the listing on the press release indicated "Economically Disadvantaged".

The only information collected by the School Board that could point to “economically disadvantaged” is the FARMS question. This is also the standard proxy used by FCPS for calculating “economically disadvantaged” for other purposes. It has been discussed on this Forum that they don’t have access to tax returns and such to make a direct determination.

The school board is yet to clarify how they came to the conclusion on more “economically disadvantaged” were admitted and especially after the inconsistency on the FARMS question was highlighted.

Do you have a view on why we should believe the Board?

Well, for one thing, the Admissions Office liaises directly with the individual schools for each applicant, both for demographic information but also (more critically) to confirm that they're enrolled in the appropriate level of math. There's actually a member of the Student Services Department for each FCPS middle school who is directly responsible for managing all of these applications from the school side and they would have access to the same information that, in a normal year, determines if a student is FARMS-eligible.

The School Board has absolutely behaved inappropriately, but in this instance we're talking about reporting from the Admissions Office on data that they're getting from the schools directly.

I called one of the big feeder middle schools. Due to the free meals for all students policy, they do not have typical collection of forms to get data on the income of parents this school year. They do have some select social services programs (Food stamps and Medicaid) where the school social worker might ask a parent to fill out the form if they are helping them apply. She said that they do not provide information about parents income to the TJ Admissions office and was shocked at the idea. But that’s just one school and whoever answered the phone.

I guess if someone wants to email or call the TJ Admissions office directly and ask them what data they use (ie is it really just the meals questions? or is there another layer and what exactly that layer is?) that would give a more direct answer.

It would be interesting if any of the plaintiffs in the case checked that box. Assuming that they are not low-income (which might not be correct), I would say that would not help their case.

[Anonymous]

This is all so, so backwards. Helping POC and low income students should be happening in all K-8 schools. Including help with the AAP process, or eliminating AAP segregation. Not selectively hyperfocusing on 9th grade admission to the #1 high school in America as the place and time where the prior 9 years of public school inequities can be remedied.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is all so, so backwards. Helping POC and low income students should be happening in all K-8 schools. Including help with the AAP process, or eliminating AAP segregation. Not selectively hyperfocusing on 9th grade admission to the #1 high school in America as the place and time where the prior 9 years of public school inequities can be remedied.

+1. Keep the status quo at TJ. Also offer some tutoring at the elementary school level that won't accomplish anything

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The answer is very simple.

FCPS should just eliminate all the newly introduced proxy-to-race factors such as geographic quota and experienced factors. One would argue it's not that difficult to administer a test. But given the laziness of FCPS admins, I don't think they would administer one.

No the tests are proxies too is the problem.

Hmmm that's the definition of racism. Are you implying URMs can't do well in tests?

Given that they have less access to boutique expensive test prep opportunities because on balance they tend to have fewer resources, yes. Underrepresented groups (like, for example, poor Asians) can’t afford to send their kids to these companies to get a leg up on exams.

However, "poor Asians" are doing extremely well on the entrance exam for the Stuyvesant. They don;t have money for classes or tutors so they study with a book. Almost all the Asian admittees are "poor". Another inconvenient truth.

Stuyvesant is not TJ. A much higher percentage of the total applicants going for Stuy are low-income. Many of the wealthier kids applying for the NY elite public schools list others as their preference.

Bottom line is almost no poor Asians got in under the previous process and under the new process they were the biggest beneficiaries. More poor Asians admitted than total Black and total Hispanic students.

Hahahahaha That's your response - Stuyvesant is not TJ? You should just give it up if that's all you have. Inconvenient Truth!

Yes. They are different schools that exist in completely different economic spaces.

Yes they are different schools. They even have different school names. They are even in different states.

It's fascinating that no poor Asians got in under the previous system but under the new system they were the biggest beneficiaries!

If this is true, then it's hard to claim that this policy is anti-asian especially since they are still the largest group in these programs by a huge margin.

This claim is made on the basis of FARMS statistics. This metric was self reported last year. The question was poorly worded and everyone could respond with a “yes”. Many followed the “spirit” of the question and not the “letter” of the question and responded with a no. Many others said yes. Unlike other years, FARMS last year was not a representative metric of poverty. Braband claimed the new process gave greater access to lower income kids based on this flawed data. This was either stupidity on the part of the School Board or a cynical plan of manipulation (more likely the latter). You can search for this issue on this forum.

So the claim about greater access to lower income kids is in the same category as “largest crowds came to my inauguration” - utter BS

Are you calling Asians liars?

I am pointing to a flaw in the process that has been highlighted by many. I will let your prejudices lead you to your conclusions.

The claim was that the new system let more poor Asian kids into TJ. The response was that people lied on the application. The obvious implication is that whoever said that thinks the Asians who checked the FARMs box are lying

Gotcha works in settling playground arguments as does calling people names. Unfortunately it does not work in a court of law. It is immaterial if Asians or others responded truthfully or not. The question should not have allowed ambiguity in response. School Board officials had a duty to design a question that was unambiguous. They failed (either out of incompetence or by design). So yes whatever - you can call people names and please your soul. That is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Genuine question - do you have confirmation from any source that the self-reported data from the question asked was directly used in reporting the Economically Disadvantaged data? It's worth noting that while the question asked referenced eligibility for free/reduced meals, the listing on the press release indicated "Economically Disadvantaged".

The only information collected by the School Board that could point to “economically disadvantaged” is the FARMS question. This is also the standard proxy used by FCPS for calculating “economically disadvantaged” for other purposes. It has been discussed on this Forum that they don’t have access to tax returns and such to make a direct determination.

The school board is yet to clarify how they came to the conclusion on more “economically disadvantaged” were admitted and especially after the inconsistency on the FARMS question was highlighted.

Do you have a view on why we should believe the Board?

Well, for one thing, the Admissions Office liaises directly with the individual schools for each applicant, both for demographic information but also (more critically) to confirm that they're enrolled in the appropriate level of math. There's actually a member of the Student Services Department for each FCPS middle school who is directly responsible for managing all of these applications from the school side and they would have access to the same information that, in a normal year, determines if a student is FARMS-eligible.

The School Board has absolutely behaved inappropriately, but in this instance we're talking about reporting from the Admissions Office on data that they're getting from the schools directly.

We are not talking about how the data is collected. If the data is flawed and is collected by the principal themselves, it is still flawed. Unless you saying the school relied on information outside what was in the application. Which opens up a whole new line of concern.

Every student in the county has a file with information based what was supplied when the kid was initially enrolled. FARMs eligibility is part of that file

One, unlike race, economic status evolves and will not be the same from when the child enrolled. Certainly COVID impacted economic status of many families. The Board cannot defend using FARMS data that is not current.

Two, if I stated that my child was FARMS eligible in the application and some school officer overruled me based on his assessment of my child’s record then they need to ratify me and I should have an opportunity to appeal. None of this happened.

What happened was Braband and company chose to claim glory based on a flawed premise.

Y'all are nuts. Checking the FARMS box is fine as a proxy for ED, has been fine, and was fine during the worst of the pandemic. Virtually everyone experienced some financial hardship in 2020, not losing the house hardship but some form on food insecurity and other financial insecurity. That doesn't make FCPS wrong. It means the pandemic was hard.

We agree with you. Nothing wrong with anyone checking the FARMS box. What is disingenuous is the School Board claiming the process resulted in more of the “poorer” folks being admitted. We should drop that claim as thoroughly discredited.

There are absolutely more than 0.6% economically-disadvantaged students with the new process.

Maybe not 25% because there are likely some amoral parents trying to game the system, but certainly higher than 0.6%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is all so, so backwards. Helping POC and low income students should be happening in all K-8 schools. Including help with the AAP process, or eliminating AAP segregation. Not selectively hyperfocusing on 9th grade admission to the #1 high school in America as the place and time where the prior 9 years of public school inequities can be remedied.

We can't do two things at once. Because underserved or underrepresented students don't belong at the #1 high school in America.